TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the substituted heirs of Respondent NO.4.
(2.) THE admitted case of the petitioner is that, his application for restoration being S.A.R. Case No. 24 -R -15 of 1977 -78 was dismissed on 27.12.1977 (as would be apparent from the order of the A.D.M., Ranchi passed in the appeal). Being aggrieved the petitioner filed S.A.R. Appeal No. 27 -R -15 of 1978 -79 and after hearing the parties that appeal was also dismissed on 11.6.1986. The petitioner again filed a Revision before the respondent no. 1 vide SAR. Revision 451 of 1986 and by an order dated 6.7.1994, the Commissioner also dismissed the Revision Application. This Court, therefore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with three consistent orders that have been passed by appropriate Courts under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
(3.) IN that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.;